Following reliefs are sought in this petition. "It is therefore, prayed for the reasons submitted herein above and those to be urged at the time of arguments order impugned in the writ petition No. 187-HD of 1997 dated 30.05.1997 may very kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent it terminates the rights of seniority to the petitioner w.e.f 30.05.1997, by the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the na­ture of certiorari. To command and direct the re­spondents to grant seniority to the petitioner as Dy. S.P w.e.f 30.05.1997 on the analogy and pattern as has been granted to Sh. Abdul Rashid Baba and Sh. Sewa Singh on the ba­sis of their respective dates of promo­tions, with all consequential benefits including promotions to the next higher grade, after re-fixing the senior­ity as Dy. S.P w.e.f 30.05.1997 by issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus." 2. Paragraph-? (a) of the writ petition is taken note of:- "That the action of the respon­dents of treating the petitioner dif­ferently and unequally by vis-a-vis Shri Sewa and Abdul Rashid Baba, is discriminatory, illegal and wrong. Respondents are under an obligation and legal duty to treat the similarly situated and circumstanced persons with one yard stick. All Dy. S. Ps. granted out of turn promotion on the basis of their out of turn promotion have been bracketed in one group and entitled to the same treatment. This is the essence and spirit of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which guarantee equal­ity of law and equal protection of the laws to every citizens and similarly situated persons. Respondents have deliberately treated the petitioner dif­ferently and unequally vis-a-vis his other colleagues named above at the time of granting out of turn promotion of the petitioner regarding non-grant of seniority is arbitrary and illegal and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents cannot treat the petitioner with a different yard stick in view of the provisions of equality contained in part-in of the Constitu­tion." 3. Paragraph-12 of the rejoinder affi­davit filed by the petitioner is taken note of:- “That just after less than three years one more promotion was granted to the two officials of the C.M. Security vide Order dated 8.7.1999 whereby Mr. A.R Baba was promoted as S.P from Dy. S.P and N.P Singh Dy. S.P from Inspector. Paragraph-12 of the rejoinder affi­davit filed by the petitioner is taken note of:- “That just after less than three years one more promotion was granted to the two officials of the C.M. Security vide Order dated 8.7.1999 whereby Mr. A.R Baba was promoted as S.P from Dy. S.P and N.P Singh Dy. S.P from Inspector. To appreciate the du­plicity of the respondents made in their counter affidavit it deserves to be noted that for the post of S.P by way of promotion minimum experi­ence required in terms of the Police Gazetted services is five years while as Mr. A. R. Baba had only less than three as Dy. S.P then how was he pro­moted when in case of the petitioner they have maintained that the peti­tioner had not required five years services as inspector to be promoted as Dy. S.P. Secondly Mr. N. P Singh was promoted as Inspector by way of out of turn promotion on 24.12.1996 and on 8.7.99 had less than three years service as Inspector then how was he promoted as Dy. S.P which shows without any doubt that it is only in case of the petitioner that this frivolous plea has been raised otherwise the law is that once out of turn promotion is granted in relaxation of the normal rules this bogies plea of required experience cannot be agitated that why above mentioned officials were promoted. Their can't be two sets of rules in the same State and the organization. Copy of the said order is appended as annexure R/8 to this rejoinder." 4. Paragraph-5 of the reply affidavit filed by respondents is taken note of:- "That it is further submitted that the case of the petitioner and those of Ab. Rashid Baba and Sewa Singh Monkotia are dissimilar and not tmalogou. In the case of Ab. Rashid Baba and Sewa Singh Monkotia both had completed the minimum length of requisite service of five years as Inspector besides their cases and achievements forwarded by PHQ in the form of dossiers with recommen­dations were thoroughly examined in the Home department and their cases for out of turn promotions from Inspec­tor to Dy. SP were placed before the selection committee of Home Depart­ment and only after thorough exami­nation of their service records. Orders of their out of turn promotions were issued. SP were placed before the selection committee of Home Depart­ment and only after thorough exami­nation of their service records. Orders of their out of turn promotions were issued. Whereas in the case of the petitioner no such exercise was un­dertaken as the petitioner had put in just one year of service as Inspector and was ineligible for promotion to the rank of Dy. SP as the basic eligi­bility for promotion for the post of Dy. SP is five years service as Inspector. Besides, there is no recommendation from the DGP i. e Respondent No. 2 for his substantive out of turn promotion. It is on account of these reasons that the case of the petitioner is clearly dissimilar to the case of Ab. Rashid Baba and Sewa Singh Monkotia, which necessitated the imposition of above mentioned two conditions while promoting the petitioner out of turn basis. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj Parkash Gupta's case has held and directed that no appointment/promo­tion should be made in relaxation of rules. Since the petitioner was not even eligible for substantive promo­tion as Dy. SP as he had not com­pleted the requisite length of service as Inspector and he became eligible for promotion only in January 2001 and in case he is granted out of turn promotion as Dy SP on substantive basis w.e.f. 30.06.1997 i.e. from the date of his above adhoc out of turn promotion, it would tantamount vio­lation of the Apex Court Judgment as the promotion has to be in relaxation of the length of service as prescribed under rules." 5. Paragraph-12 of the rejoinder affi­davit has not been replied by the re­spondents, though, they have filed re­sponse to it. 6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner sub­mitted that it was only the petitioner who was recommended for being granted out of turn promotion in view of his outstanding performance at the time when most of the employees for variety of reasons refused to discharge their duties. Ld counsel submitted that the petitioner has shown exemplary courage and bravery in performing his duties, at the time when the State was ushered into most abnormal circum­stances. Ld counsel referred to the rec­ommendation of the 15th Nov. 1996 made in favour of the petitioner by Su­perintendent of Police Leh/Ladakh. Ld counsel submitted that the petitioner has shown exemplary courage and bravery in performing his duties, at the time when the State was ushered into most abnormal circum­stances. Ld counsel referred to the rec­ommendation of the 15th Nov. 1996 made in favour of the petitioner by Su­perintendent of Police Leh/Ladakh. Ld counsel submitted, though, the peti­tioner was granted out of turn promo­tion but same was on adhoc basis and it was further provided in the said Gov­ernment order No. 187-HD of 1997 dated 30th May 1997 that the promotees(s) shall not claim seniority over the other employees who are se­nior to them in their respective cadre(s). Id counsel submitted that pe­titioner has been subjected to invidi­ous discrimination in-as-much as other persons reference of whom is made in paragraph-7 (a) of the writ pe­tition and paragraph-12 of the rejoin­der affidavit, which pleading of the re­joinder affidavit has not been contro­verted by the respondents in the re­sponse filed to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner have been given out of turn promotion twice with seniority. Ld counsel submitted that the peti­tioner both in fact and law is to be given same treatment which has been given to the persons whose details are given in paragraph-7 (a) of the writ petition and paragraph-12 of the rejoinder affi­davit. Ld counsel submitted that the procedure provided for making out of turn promotion(s) vide Government or­der No. Home-3 (p) of 2000 dated 06th Jan. 2000, would not govern the case of the petitioner as his case along with other similarly circumstanced persons was considered and benefit was granted before issuance of said Government order. Ld counsel submitted that the petitioner was, thus, to be granted out of turn promotion in the same manner in which it has been granted to other similarly circumstanced persons. 7. Mr. Suja, Id Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner has no right in law to claim out of turn promo­tion. Ld counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not been discrimi­nated and he is not entitled to any re­lief from this court. 8. The appointment by way of pro­motion to the next higher post/rank is to be made in accordance with the Statutory Rules and Government or­ders occupying the field in respect of the member service or class of service. Ld counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not been discrimi­nated and he is not entitled to any re­lief from this court. 8. The appointment by way of pro­motion to the next higher post/rank is to be made in accordance with the Statutory Rules and Government or­ders occupying the field in respect of the member service or class of service. The Government arid the competent authority while making appointments by way of promotion to the next higher post/rank is duty bound to follow the statutory rules. However, there can be exceptions to afore-stated mode of mak­ing promotion to next higher post/rank. An employee can be considered for out of turn promotion to the next higher post/rank only in most rare and excep­tional circumstances and such promo­tions cannot be granted in normal course. In the year 1990 State of J&K, more particularly Kashmir Valley was ushered into highly abnormal circum­stances. The functioning of the govern­ment departments had literally come to grinding halt. The State and its au­thorities in view of the mandate con­tained in the Constitution of India and Constitution of J&K was duty bound to find out the means and methods to bring back the shuddering administra­tion on rails. It appears that in order to accomplish this purpose the State Gov­ernment had taken policy decision to give out of turn promotion to such of the employees who in the teeth of highly adverse atmosphere would per­form their duties and show exemplary courage so as to ensure that the grip of the State over the administration is not completely lost. The State Govern­ment in order to achieve the aforemen­tioned purpose granted out of turn promotion(s) to many employees work­ing in different department(s) of the State Government which include Po­lice Department as well. 9. The respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner of being sub­jected to invidious discrimination by stating those persons whose details are mentioned at paragraph-7 (a) of the writ petition were fulfilling criterion as they had five years service at their back when they were given out of turn promotion to the rank of Dy. S.P. The respondents, however, have not replied the averment made in paragraph-12 of the rejoinder affidavit where it is pleaded that these officials/officers were lacking required service of five years when they were promoted to the post of S.P and Dy. S.P. The respondents, however, have not replied the averment made in paragraph-12 of the rejoinder affidavit where it is pleaded that these officials/officers were lacking required service of five years when they were promoted to the post of S.P and Dy. S.P respectively, notwithstanding, this fact that respon­dents have filed response to the rejoin­der affidavit. 10. What emerges from the plead­ings of the parties and material placed on record is that the respondent-state had taken a policy decision to give out of turn promotion to those of the em­ployees who by the discharge of their duties would enable the government to have control on the administration and run the affairs of the State in accor­dance with law, when majority of the employees would shy away, for variety of reasons, from discharging their du­ties. The purpose sought to be achieved is acceptable in view of the extra ordi­nary circumstances in which State was ushered into in the year 1990. 11. Grant of out of turn promotion would not pre-suppose that the em­ployee who was considered for such benefit must first satisfy the eligibil­ity condition laid in the recruitment rules. If an employee was granted pro­motion to the next higher post/rank only after he would satisfy eligibility criteria, then same would not be called out of turn promotion and it would never become an incentive to the members of the service to perform and discharge their duties when there was threat to their lives. Grant of out of turn promo­tion was held-out as a promise and in­centive to those employees who per­formed and discharged their duties when the State machinery had liter­ally crumbled down. Such of the em­ployees faced huge problems and even threat to their lives. 12. The petitioner in view of the material placed on record was recom­mended by the authorities for grant of out of turn promotion so were the persons whose details are given in paragraph-7 (a) of the writ petition and 12 of the rejoinder affidavit. The per­sons mentioned in paragraph-12 of the rejoinder affidavit were also lacking requisite service of five years when they were promoted to next higher post(s)/rank. The contention of the Id counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not possessed of requi­site service at the time he was granted out of turn promotion, that is why he was not given seniority from that date, cannot be accepted in these circum­stances. The contention of the Id counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was not possessed of requi­site service at the time he was granted out of turn promotion, that is why he was not given seniority from that date, cannot be accepted in these circum­stances. In view of the pleadings and the material placed on record, the pe­titioner and persons whose details are given in paragraph-7(a) of the writ pe­tition and paragraph-12 of the rejoin­der affidavit constitute one single class in law and were to be given uniform treatment. The petitioner admittedly has been subjected to invidious dis­crimination which has resulted in vio­lation of rights guaranteed under Ar­ticle 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is entitled to be given same treatment which has been given to the persons whose details are given in paragraph-? (a) of the writ petition and paragraph-12 of the rejoinder affidavit and for which the petitioner has sought relief (b) in the writ petition. For the above stated reasons, this petition de­serves to be allowed. 13. Providing of an incentive for grant of out of turn promotion to any em­ployee at this stage may not be permis­sible as the situation has considerably improved. The grant of out of turn pro­motion to any employee would defi­nitely adversely affect rights of other members of the service or class of ser­vice. As already stated, however, in or­der to run affairs of the State at one point of time, the State Government was justified in taking such a decision for giving out of turn promotions to the next higher post(s)/rank but such course cannot be followed when there is substantial improvement in the State and elected government is run­ning the affairs of the State. 14. The petitioner has been denied his due and subjected to invidious dis­crimination way back in the year 1997. The wrong done to him has to be re­dressed and justice is to be meted out to him. His rights got crystallized in the year 1997, though, fruits were denied to him till date. This court is duty bound to act in accordance with law and remedy the wrong to which the peti­tioner has been subjected to. 15. For the above stated reasons, this writ petition is allowed. __________